Currently, we have some confusion in the codebase regarding the
meaning of LocationSize::unknown(): Some parts (including most of
BasicAA) assume that LocationSize::unknown() only allows accesses
after the base pointer. Some parts (various callers of AA) assume
that LocationSize::unknown() allows accesses both before and after
the base pointer (but within the underlying object).
This patch splits up LocationSize::unknown() into
LocationSize::afterPointer() and LocationSize::beforeOrAfterPointer()
to make this completely unambiguous. I tried my best to determine
which one is appropriate for all the existing uses.
The test changes in cs-cs.ll in particular illustrate a previously
clearly incorrect AA result: We were effectively assuming that
argmemonly functions were only allowed to access their arguments
after the passed pointer, but not before it. I'm pretty sure that
this was not intentional, and it's certainly not specified by
LangRef that way.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91649
This is the third patch in a series intended to make
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44748 more easily reviewable. Please see that
patch for more context. The second being r344013.
The intent is to make the output of printing a LocationSize more
precise. The main motivation for this is that we plan to add a bit to
distinguish whether a given LocationSize is an upper-bound or is
precise; making that information available in pretty-printing is nice.
llvm-svn: 344108
The only point to this change is the test diffs. When I remove this code entirely (in favor of the recently added generic handling), I don't want there to be any confusion due to spurious test diffs.
As an aside, the fact out tests are AST construction order dependent is not great. I thought about fixing that, but the reasonable schemes I might want (e.g. sort by name) need the test diffs anyways.
Philip
llvm-svn: 341841
Volatility is not an aliasing property. We used to model volatile as if it had extremely conservative aliasing implications, but that hasn't been true for several years now. So, it doesn't make sense to be in AliasSet.
It also turns out the code is entirely a noop. Outside of the AST code to update it, there was only one user: load store promotion in LICM. L/S promotion doesn't need the check since it walks all the users of the address anyway. It already checks each load or store via !isUnordered which causes us to bail for volatile accesses. (Look at the lines immediately following the two remove asserts.)
There is the possibility of some small compile time impact here, but the only case which will get noticeably slower is a loop with a large number of loads and stores to the same address where only the last one we inspect is volatile. This is sufficiently rare it's not worth optimizing for..
llvm-svn: 340312
Summary:
The atomic variants of the memcpy/memmove/memset intrinsics can be treated
the same was as the regular forms, with respect to aliasing. Update the
AliasSetTracker to treat the atomic forms the same was as the regular forms.
llvm-svn: 333551
Nikita Popov